Narrative:

During a short cross country from ZZZ to osh; and while on an IFR flight plan; we were cleared for the ILS runway 36 approach by chicago center. We were asked to maintain 2700 ft until established and were asked to contact tower. We continued on the assigned heading expecting to intercept the localizer. No success. Tower asked us if we intended to land runway 36 and we responded yes. Tower said that chicago center indicated our aircraft position was 3 miles right/east of the runway 36 centerline. Realizing the radio navigation troubles; we cancelled IFR and landed safely on runway 36 using visual reference. Post landing discussion ensued to determine the cause of navigational errors. We discovered the garmin 430 to have been selected for GPS; instead of the desired vloc setting. Only one button separated us from success and failure. We will be extra careful to avoid this problem on all future IFR approach efforts. By the way; osh landing traffic was very quiet at the time of this navigational error. No request was made to contact tower. No other aircraft were impacted by our error. Better pilot understanding of the garmin 430 would help to avoid this problem in the future. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that what really happened was the aircraft's owner; a friend; is not instrument rated but had the advanced navigation equipment in his aircraft. The owner was flying that day with the instrument rated reporter on an IFR flight plan. When the approach began; the non instrument rated pilot flying was expecting the vloc needle swing and the autoplt to capture while the instrument rated non flying pilot who did not know the system did not know what to expect. However; he knew that they did not select the GPS approach prior to flight. The GPS illuminated CDI light was missed by both pilots who then became confused about why the coupled autoplt did not capture the localizer when the correct ILS frequency was selected. Secondly; the reporter was confused because the display was track up while his paper chart was north up. The two pilots were flying VMC at the time and could see the airport but because he could not map the north up approach plate to the track up electronic display he was unsure what he was looking at. Report's feedback is; 'be more than just familiar with the equipment.' neither pilot has completed a formal training course on the garmin 430. The reporter feels the FAA should require a minimum certificate on advanced navigation systems prior to operating an aircraft with a system installed. The major issue is cost and secondarily; availability of courses. He feels the FAA should offer a basic automation ground school for anyone.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMA PLT USING AN ADVANCED NAVIGATION SYSTEM FAILED TO SELECT THE VLOC MODE AND FLEW THROUGH THE CLRED LOCALIZER COURSE WITH GPS SELECTED.

Narrative: DURING A SHORT CROSS COUNTRY FROM ZZZ TO OSH; AND WHILE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN; WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 36 APCH BY CHICAGO CTR. WE WERE ASKED TO MAINTAIN 2700 FT UNTIL ESTABLISHED AND WERE ASKED TO CONTACT TWR. WE CONTINUED ON THE ASSIGNED HDG EXPECTING TO INTERCEPT THE LOCALIZER. NO SUCCESS. TWR ASKED US IF WE INTENDED TO LAND RWY 36 AND WE RESPONDED YES. TWR SAID THAT CHICAGO CTR INDICATED OUR ACFT POSITION WAS 3 MILES RIGHT/EAST OF THE RWY 36 CTRLINE. REALIZING THE RADIO NAVIGATION TROUBLES; WE CANCELLED IFR AND LANDED SAFELY ON RWY 36 USING VISUAL REFERENCE. POST LNDG DISCUSSION ENSUED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF NAVIGATIONAL ERRORS. WE DISCOVERED THE GARMIN 430 TO HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR GPS; INSTEAD OF THE DESIRED VLOC SETTING. ONLY ONE BUTTON SEPARATED US FROM SUCCESS AND FAILURE. WE WILL BE EXTRA CAREFUL TO AVOID THIS PROB ON ALL FUTURE IFR APCH EFFORTS. BY THE WAY; OSH LNDG TFC WAS VERY QUIET AT THE TIME OF THIS NAVIGATIONAL ERROR. NO REQUEST WAS MADE TO CONTACT TWR. NO OTHER ACFT WERE IMPACTED BY OUR ERROR. BETTER PLT UNDERSTANDING OF THE GARMIN 430 WOULD HELP TO AVOID THIS PROB IN THE FUTURE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WAS THE ACFT'S OWNER; A FRIEND; IS NOT INSTRUMENT RATED BUT HAD THE ADVANCED NAVIGATION EQUIP IN HIS ACFT. THE OWNER WAS FLYING THAT DAY WITH THE INSTRUMENT RATED RPTR ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. WHEN THE APCH BEGAN; THE NON INSTRUMENT RATED PLT FLYING WAS EXPECTING THE VLOC NEEDLE SWING AND THE AUTOPLT TO CAPTURE WHILE THE INSTRUMENT RATED NON FLYING PLT WHO DID NOT KNOW THE SYSTEM DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. HOWEVER; HE KNEW THAT THEY DID NOT SELECT THE GPS APCH PRIOR TO FLT. THE GPS ILLUMINATED CDI LIGHT WAS MISSED BY BOTH PLTS WHO THEN BECAME CONFUSED ABOUT WHY THE COUPLED AUTOPLT DID NOT CAPTURE THE LOC WHEN THE CORRECT ILS FREQ WAS SELECTED. SECONDLY; THE RPTR WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE THE DISPLAY WAS TRACK UP WHILE HIS PAPER CHART WAS NORTH UP. THE TWO PLTS WERE FLYING VMC AT THE TIME AND COULD SEE THE ARPT BUT BECAUSE HE COULD NOT MAP THE NORTH UP APCH PLATE TO THE TRACK UP ELECTRONIC DISPLAY HE WAS UNSURE WHAT HE WAS LOOKING AT. RPT'S FEEDBACK IS; 'BE MORE THAN JUST FAMILIAR WITH THE EQUIP.' NEITHER PLT HAS COMPLETED A FORMAL TRAINING COURSE ON THE GARMIN 430. THE RPTR FEELS THE FAA SHOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM CERTIFICATE ON ADVANCED NAVIGATION SYSTEMS PRIOR TO OPERATING AN ACFT WITH A SYSTEM INSTALLED. THE MAJOR ISSUE IS COST AND SECONDARILY; AVAILABILITY OF COURSES. HE FEELS THE FAA SHOULD OFFER A BASIC AUTOMATION GND SCHOOL FOR ANYONE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.